|
V. wrote: but when you get it with a new machine...
But is everyone so lucky to get a new machine at thier whims and fancies? 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, XP also had problems when it was released. I stuck to Win 2k for quite some time after the release of XP and I intend to do the same with Vista.
|
|
|
|
|
But when buying a new product the question should rather be WHY than WHY NOT?
With a new machine it's ok. I would do the same
|
|
|
|
|
i don't like vista...
i don't like transparency, disolvence aeroglass etc etc
i used to use always the windows classical theme also in xp.
i use xp pro sp2 and i think it's a good os... perhaps the best microsoft os
i suppose we have to wait for vista sp1 for releasing a real impression on vista.
someone would say: always wait for sp1 in microsoft os
but the real new vista features i were interested in as winfs!!?? where are they???
i think that the windows server 2008 will be a new os and not an new graphic interface as vista (i read some really interesting new features in a microsoft powerpoint)
----------------------------
nowhere now here-------> giammin.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
giammin wrote: always wait for sp1 in microsoft os
The classic Windows 98 is a very good example. Isn't it? The then system administrators would normally prefer installing Windows 98 Second Edition.
|
|
|
|
|
i fear that Vista is going to be a fake as windows me....
|
|
|
|
|
giammin wrote: but the real new vista features i were interested in as winfs!!?? where are they???
Winfs was scrapped a few years ago because performance was very bad.
John
|
|
|
|
|
I have installed and used Vista since it was in Beta version. I've seen how much it has changed till now. Now I'm using it as my primary OS for development. I have to say that it has cute interface and Microsoft has tried to make it more useful for people. But lets face the truth, windows Vista is a big memory waster. I don't care if it boots up or shuts down faster than any other OS, it just wastes system resources. I assume any professional developer may need VMWare or some kind of Virtual Computing software for development purposes. A fresh installation of windows XP takes about 150MB of memory space and leaves the rest of it for your usage. Windows Vista takes about 700MB of memory if you don't install any other 3rd party application on it. My development platform uses about 1.2GB memory when it boots up and during my work it consumes much more. I was able to have 3 VMs up and running during my normal development in windows XP but now i can hardly have one VM working during my normal activities. basically Vista uses more than 4 times as windows XP's memory usage! Isn't there any optimization process during the OS development phases anymore?
By the way, had anyone of you seen WinFS in the early Longhorn Beta Releases? Vista's name was still Longhorn and it had WinFS service in it too. It used 170MB of memory only by it self when the system came up!!! Fortunately they decided not to release it because i think it would have added much more mess to Vista.
During my experience with windows Vista and using it as development platform i have encountered the following problems may times on a system that only has Visual Studio 2005, MS SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition and VMWare Workstation installed on it.
1. Numerous application crashes or short-time hangs especially for Visual Studio 2005 IDE
2. Countless explorer long delays because of no reason
3. Confusion between multiple network devices installed on the system resulting in complete disconnection of network access
4. At least 2 or 3 Blue Screens in a week
So, my conclusion is Windows Vista has got a long way to go to become a stable operating system.
|
|
|
|
|
Osama Askari wrote: Its not developer friendly
Significantly. I think the Shell Extensions have significant impact at least with respect to Vista. Isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Does everyone remember when microsofot released that horror of an operating system Windows ME (HOW COULD YOU FORGET!)...As terrible as it was, it was ultimately a vital stepping stone towards the creation of Windows XP. Similarly, and perhaps more so, Vista is simply a stepping stone towards something greater, a steep learning curve if you like. This is especially true with vista because its almost entirely new, built from the ground up, hence its long production time. Now i don't think i'm telling anybody anything they didn't already know but my point is this:
If you realise that Vista is just a prototype for a faster, better, more user friendly, secure and reliable operating system...then stop complaining and get over it. Of course its going to have bugs and glitches, security issues and user unfriendliness in parts, but overall it will result in a much better end product.
Even when windows XP was released it had its fair share of problems, but two service packs later and the majority of complaints die down, Vista will be the same, two service packs later and we'll all wonder why we ever used XP (maybe). Anyway, that's my opinion and the reason why i haven't bought it yet, i'm gonna wait till the complaints die down, then i know it will be better and good enough for me to make the move.
|
|
|
|
|
The ANZAC wrote: Windows ME (HOW COULD YOU FORGET!)...As terrible as it was, it was ultimately a vital stepping stone towards the creation of Windows XP.
In term of kernel ME was the last offshoot of the ignominious 9x series, when XP is the grandson of NT4.
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Syndicalism is the opposite.
Fold with us! ¤ flickr
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps i ment millenium, regardless a learning curve is still a learning curve, just as windows realised that the 9x series was finished it has also decided to move off from the NT4 design.
|
|
|
|
|
So Microsoft is asking us to pay hundreds of dollars for a prototype so they can produce the real thing in 2012 and charge us again?
You aren't helping ANZAC
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote: Watson's law:
As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
|
|
|
|
|
Damn Right! What else would you expect out of microsoft. The point is...things will get better.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I'd put in a good word for Vista. I've been using it as my (only) primary OS for the last 3 months and wouldn't even think of switching back.
Firsts things first I've got a computer that is capable of running it: an AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ with 2GB of DDR2-6400, a 320MB nVidia 8800 GTS and close to a terabyte of storage, and a 22" widescreen TFT.
I've actually got two 120GB disks, one with system disks for XP and one with Vista. The XP disk is still in the computer but I've hardly ever rebooted into it, on the rare occasion that I have I've noticed how slow XP is compared to Vista, yes that's right slow, it takes about 4 times as long to get everything up and running under XP compared to Vista. Vista may be caching things, I haven't checked but do I care? No, with the space available I'd rather have things boot quickly.
Regarding drivers I did have a problem initially however these are down to the manufacturer of the said product rather than Vista. One which peeved me was DVDs were appearing washed out, even under XP but this turned out to be a problem with the nVidia drivers which an update soon fixed. Wireless drivers haven't been a problem and can connect to the IC wireless network when I want to, although I don't since this I've got a proper RJ45 socket in halls.
I've just received a Brother laser printer and a Canon scanner and neither of these had problems with installing drivers onto a Ultimate x64. In fact the only problem I've got with drivers now has been an ancient Lego Cam which I wanted to use the microphone on but considering that this thing is close to a decade old I don't blame it. I can however boot into an XP VM and use it just fine.
Regarding development work and normal work I haven't had a problem and in fact prefer Vista to XP for this purpose, the only issues I've had have been when trying to publish stuff to the local IIS when not running VS2008 under administrator priviledges, which makes sense really. The other usual stuff I haven't had a single problem with, if I create a new database on my SQL server I do need to be running SSMS with admin priviledges but again there's a reason for that, and normally you don't need to do so.
The only occassions where I've had to use an alternative OS has been to use Quartus (digital circuit simulator), OrCAD and a few other packages for my university course, however these are not Vista problems, it's problems with the companies who write them not supporting things properly and it's no bother to boot up a VM with the stuff in it. In fact I've created a VM especially for Imperial work to keep my main machine nice and clean.
Unusual I think but I actually like the UAC because it lets me know when a program is trying to do something special and gives me a greater understanding of what's going on with particular programs. The other little things people have critized such as the eye-candy I don't mind and prefer the Aero look to XPs, even with different themes. Perhaps this is because my graphics card is more than capable and by shifting off the rendering to the hardware Vista is actually faster, this I think is the a major factor in the speed difference between XP and Vista on the same PC. The Start menu search I absolutely love and also the way that explorer defaults the focus to the search box, the only major criticism I have of explorer is the way it forgets about my "default" view and continually changes it. There is a hack for this but I haven't bothered tracking it down yet.
Plus IIS7 makes it even better, just wish the FTP was included under the 7.0 management interface rather than the 6.0.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm running a core2duo 2.66GHz, 2GB DDR2 800mhz, a 320GB HDD as my vista hardrive (and a load of other stuff on it too) and 2 8600GT's in SLI... so far the only problem I've had with vista is that my wireless microsoft keyboard hasn't functioned correctly (think it's just an issue wih the base plugged into a PS2 slot, will try a converter later.) sure I've experienced a few hangups, but honestly, I've seen "not responding" way more on XP. plus the frequent explorer.exe crashes on XP. as far as I'm concerned, I've got at least one service packs 'til I can actually say whether or not I'm disatisfied by vista  so far, GUI looks sweet, drivers are manufacturer issues, not issues with vista, and my games run strong like bull  . quite honestly I welcome and accept change.
|
|
|
|
|
twinscythe12332 wrote: I've seen "not responding" way more on XP
I've seen a few more than normal but Vista recovers from it more gracefully, i.e. before I had to hunt around in the process list for the application and if it was explorer I'd frequently kill off the wrong process.
|
|
|
|
|
It's all about product rollover and sales not useful apps and services. It should have been a service pack on XP.
You would have to be right up there to make a case to any boss I've ever had that spending the money was a benefit - and the purchase is only the beginning....
|
|
|
|
|
And the spending doesn't stop at just buying the new OS, thats just a drop in the bucket. Many vendors are not providing free updates to their products. If you want to use their product on Vista you need to buy the latest version. ie Acronis True Image, WinRar, VMWare, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
that's what I'd check off.
It's just another OS upgrade. It takes more effort to muster up a good rant on it, than it does to just use it. Color me indifferent!
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
VCF Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Do you?
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote: Watson's law:
As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
|
|
|
|
|
StijnDP - no offense to you, as you seem more rationale and level-headed about it than most I've seen. Your post just happened to trigger something that has been in my head for some time.
The "Vista 64-bit" complainers out there really started bothering me a while back. Mainly because you can find them all over the web.
What these people have to realize is that it isn't a VISTA problem they are running into, but rather a 32bit vs. 64bit problem. Though I can't even really call it a problem, because it's behaving as designed - that is designed for a 32bit operating system.
The real problem is people thinking they can use the latest and greatest operating system without consequences. I pretty sure the MAC people know what I'm talking about. I've read about it quite enough to know it happens with just about every new release MAC has done. Software stops working, and a new version must be obtained to work on the new OS. There is a benefit to this though. It means no trying to support old outdated methods anymore, and a concentration on moving ahead with new ideas - it's up to the software developers to keep up.
While it's nice Microsoft puts so much effort to allow us to run programs that really should never be run again, I think it's time we start moving forward - dropping support for old programs. If this paradigm were followed, I think we might see a faster move to 64bit computing - not to mention a little less painful of a switch too.
64 Bit is great, but the move is going to be really slow (if not non-existent) until someone steps up and releases THE killer application/operating system that will run ONLY on 64 Bit. Until then we will continue to see this "problem."
*** OK - rant over (feels so good to get it out of my system) ***
That said, I do like the new Vista operating system. I myself have Vista Ultimate 32 bit installed at home (never had a problem running old software - except for stuff meant for DOS coming on a 5 1/4 diskettes - which I don't think would even run on XP), mainly so I wouldn't have problems running any games (which so far all run fine for me). Though I also like Linux - I seem to favor Fedora Core for the UI, yet I usually SSH into the machine to do anything. Hmmm... I must just be weird or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, it is a VISTA problem. I have been running Window XP 64 for around a year now. All my hardware works fine on XP 64 and anymore I have not had much trouble finding XP 64 drivers. Install Vista 64 and good luck MS requres all 64 bit drivers be signed. MS has allowed use of unsigned drivers on Vista 32 but refused to allow them in Vista 64. This means drivers that would otherwise be useable do not work in Vista.
I am a big fan of VMWare Server and put 4GB memory in my host box to support my virtual machines. Vista was nearly unusable in a virtual machine so I thought what the heck lets try running vista directly on the hardware and run vmware on vista.. bad idea. After installed Vista 64 I couldn't install VMWare because the drivers weren't signed. Why VMWare wont release signed 64 drivers is beyond me. Vista 32 only supports about 3GB of memory (and probably uses it all) forcing me to cut back on virtual machines, so think I'll stick with XP for now. I liked Vista about as much as that stupid ribbon bar in office 2007 anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok - PART of it is part of the os. It doesn't mean however, that it is a flaw in the OS (I do know there are flaws - and I am NOT an MS fanboy) - it is working as intended, just some poor decision making as to how 64bit unsigned drivers will work (though I can understand their want for better security).
Most complaints about it I've heard/read though are all about the software side of 64bit, and don't mention the above hardware issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Harriger wrote: MS has allowed use of unsigned drivers on Vista 32 but refused to allow them in Vista 64. This means drivers that would otherwise be useable do not work in Vista.
Kurt Harriger wrote: After installed Vista 64 I couldn't install VMWare because the drivers weren't signed.
That's complete BS. Just the other day I installed VMWare on my Vista Ultimate x64 machine. The drivers were not signed, and Vista asked me what I want to do, cancel installation or permit VMWare to install drivers. And all is fine.
The point is, you just might be doing something incorrectly.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Badger | [badger,badger,badger,badger...]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/badger.gif)